Entries in PETA
(20)

On Aug. 14, I posted accusations that Green Decoys is making against the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP). They relate mostly to TRCP’s assertion that it represents sportsmen, as it takes funds from environmental groups that often are anti-fishing and anti-hunting, as well as supportive of tighter gun controls.

In response, TRCP says this:

“The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership stands on its record of success fighting for sportsmen by fighting for conservation and access. Since its inception, the organization has been attacked by anti-conservation forces, usually working through industry front groups, for one simple reason: if sportsmen unite, sportsmen win.

“Before giving any credence to these attacks, we encourage people to research who is making the attacks and who is funding the attacks. In the meantime, the TRCP will keep working to guarantee all Americans quality places to hunt and fish.”

It adds that the organization “operates financially with a very high degree of transparency . . . We are funded at numerous levels, from foundation grants all the way down to yearly $35 members. Our annual report and Form 990 are published openly on our website for all to see.”

Finally, it provides links regarding the origin of Green Decoys, and, I’ll acknowledge that it does not seem as transparent as TRCP regarding its origin and funding. Green Decoys describes itself as “a project of the Environmental Policy Alliance.”

And the Environmental Policy Alliance is “a project of the Center for Organizational Research & Education” which was formerly the Center for Consumer Freedom. The latter originated with Richard Berman, a public relations specialist, who campaigns against environmental groups and labor unions, among others.

But I must say that I am in sympathy with Berman regarding his opposition to the “nanny culture” in general and some of the “targets” listed on the Berman Exposed website. They include ACORN, PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, teachers unions, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Here’s a reminder about EPA: A couple of years ago, a bureaucrat there compared his agency’s enforcement strategy to Roman crucifixion of Christians. When his comments went public, he was forced to resign.

But you can bet he’s not the only one in the EPA and other federal agencies who thinks that way. Remember Lois Lerner at the IRS?

Bottom line for me: Environmental funding groups push agendas in favor of bigger and more intrusive government and that inevitably leads to loss of freedom and abuse of power by unelected bureaucrats like that EPA official and Lois Lerner. Yes, TRCP does some great things on behalf of sportsmen, but, as it does so, it takes money from those groups, which also support anti-fishing and anti-hunting organizations and policies. What does that cozy relationship mean for the future of fishing and hunting?

PETA and other animal rights organizations that want to stop us from fishing and hunting couldn’t exist if not for financial support provided by the useful idiots who know nothing about nature and are guided purely by emotional appeals.

How stupid are they? Earlier this month, some of these mental giants viciously attacked Steven Spielberg after Jay Branscomb posted a photo with this caption on his Facebook page:

“Disgraceful photo of recreational hunter happily posing next to a Triceratops he just slaughtered. Please share so the world can name and shame this despicable man.”

By the way, triceratops, along with all other dinosaurs, have been extinct for about 65 million years. And Branscomb was having a little fun in the wake of the outrage expressed by these same people after Kendall Jones posted photos of African big game that she had shot.

But the obvious obviously wasn’t so obvious for the true believers. Here are some of the comments:

“Steven Spielberg has absolutely no respect for animals. Posing infront [sic] of this poor dead animal like that. Barbaric.”

“if these animals are so rare they should be moved to a reservation where it’s illegal to kill them.”

“He’s a disgusting inhumane [bleep] Id love to see these hunters be stopped…I think zoos are the best way to keep animals safe…[bleep]holes like this piece of [bleep] are going into these beautiful animals HOME and killing them… its no different than someone coming into your home and murdering you…”

No doubt prompted by this farce, Dan’s Papers recently posted the following:

“East End animal rights activists are up in arms about a plan to cull the dinosaur population around Georgica Pondin East Hampton. The plan under consideration, which has received support and a pledge of private funding from a certain Georgica Pond film director, involves hiring snipers with machine guns to stalk and eliminate the population of triceratops in the Georgica Pond area.

“According to area residents, the dinosaurs, which were cloned and artificially produced from prehistoric DNA and inadvertently released in a well-publicized accident several years back, have been wreaking havoc in the neighborhood: disappearances of cats, dogs, birds and even several homeowners have all been attributed to the roaming prehistoric beasts.

“Animal rights activists, who have started a group called Dinosaurs Are Friendly Too (DAFT), counter that there is no evidence that dinosaurs are to blame. “The triceratops is a beautiful, peace-loving animal that helps reduce the number of dangerous bugs in our neighborhoods,” DAFT spokesperson Reese Kriecher announced at a press conference. “Far from eating our pets, they make great pets themselves.” Authorities plan to announce a decision shortly.”

Certainly, these people are “daft.” But they also are the same folks that PETA is counting on to assist its current campaign to stop sport fishing from piers and beaches. They might be supremely ignorant, but they have money --- and they vote.

That bastion of rational thought, PETA, is taking advantage of two recent shark bites to ramp up its campaign against fishing. At both Manhattan Beach in California and Okaloosa Island in Florida, it has been using a plane to fly a banner that says, “Keep Hookers Off Beach--- No Fishing.”

Yeah, it is just so clever with word play, equating anglers with prostitutes.

The incident in Californiadoes seem to call for a compromise of some kind regarding who can use the pier and adjoining beach and when they can use it. PETA and other zealots, meanwhile, want an outright ban on sportfishing.

At least Manhattan Beach Mayor Amy Howorth is seems to be the voice of reason.

“I don’t like that we’ve demonized fishermen because one guy was behaving seemingly very horribly,” she said. “I certainly want to make it safe for people to enter the water and water sports.”

She added that the city is considering limiting hours for fishing on the pier.

What did or did not happen when a swimmer came too close to the pier, where an angler was fighting a white shark--- and was attacked--- remains the object of debate. The angler has vigorously defended his actions, and the state has declined to prosecute him.

Manhattan Beach pier. L.A. Times photo

In Florida, meanwhile, a tourist was bitten by a small shark that likely mistook his foot--- or toes--- for fish or shellfish. The media reported that someone was fishing nearby, and PETA took it from there with its anti-fishing campaign.

Almost certainly the shark was a young hammerhead or nurse shark, both of which browse along the bottom in shallow water. Or it might have been a blacktip or spinner, common fish-eating sharks in that area.

The truth is that sharks are common in the shallows all along the coasts of Florida, but the vast majority of them are not man-eaters. Still, I wouldn’t go swimming at night, and I’d always keep a lookout for dorsal fins when I’m in the water during the day. And common sense would tell me not to swim near fishermen.

To show you what I’m talking about, here is an excerpt from my upcoming book, Fish, Frogs, and Fireflies--- Growing Up With Nature, which will be published later this year:

A couple of years passed before I once again was given the chance to figuratively see the light. This time I was fishing with live shrimp along a low seawall near a beach. “Jaws” had come out that year, and many people were afraid to swim in the ocean.

The 10 or 12 people down to my right, however, either had not seen the movie or didn’t care. Through their yelling and splashing, they left no doubt that they were having a good time.

As I watched them and waited for a bite, I saw a dorsal fin cutting through the water between the beach and the swimmers. “No, it couldn’t be,” I said to myself.

It was. A large shark cruised through the shallows, on its way toward me. I considered yelling to warn the people. But I decided against it, since the predator didn’t seem to be interested in them.

As it neared me, I saw that it was an 8- to 10-foot nurse shark, which is not a man-eater. But it was my first opportunity in a long time to finally catch a big ocean fish.

I cast the shrimp a few feet in front of the shark and waited. I was not disappointed. The big fish took, and I set the hook. In an instant the shark accelerated from a leisurely feeding pace to light speed, as it headed toward deep water.

It ran, and ran, and ran, until it had pulled all the line off my reel. Then the rod bent double, the butt slammed into my stomach, and the knot popped. The shark was gone.

Those who want to keep us from fishing are just as relentless as those who want to take away our guns.

That’s why I knew exactly what would happen after a swimmer was bitten by a hooked shark as he swam near a pier where people were fishing.

And it did. Manhattan Beach government officials in the People’s Socialist Republic of California immediately banned fishing on the pier.

Now People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is pushing for a permanent ban. In a letter to the city’s major, it said the following:

“When you consider that in 2012, anglers at the Manhattan Beach Pier reeled in at least four great white sharks on three separate occasions, it seems clear that the best way to protect public safety and reduce the risk that another swimmer will be injured or killed by a panicked or confused shark is to ban fishing at the pier permanently.

“Banning fishing will spare some of the millions of sharks, birds, turtles and other animals who sustain debilitating injuries after swallowing fish hooks or becoming entangled in fishing line every year."

Never mind that the swimmer was largely responsible for the attack. The zealots don’t care about addressing the cause of the incident, any more than they care about preventing future mass murders. They see these tragedies simply as opportunities.

What they care about is imposing their Big Government world view on the rest of us. Admittedly, a ban on fishing probably isn’t in the top five of their wish list. But it’s still there, along with gun control, open borders, public-funded birth control and abortion, and a power grid powered by unicorn farts and other sources of green energy.

PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said this:

“This weekend's incident was painful for both victims — the young shark who struggled for more than 30 minutes while impaled on an angler's hook and the swimmer who had the bad luck to stumble into the shark's path. PETA is calling on the mayor to look out for everyone who wants to enjoy Manhattan Beach, including the sharks who naturally shun human contact and, like humans, rarely attack without provocation.” (Notice use of “who” as a pronoun for sharks to humanize them.)

And in a post about the incident for LA Weekly, the anti-fishing writer advocates a ban on fishing at all L.A. area piers. He also pointedly described the angler as a “tattooed fisherman.” No attempt to poison the waters for fishermen there, huh?

I don’t know the specifics regarding piers and fishing in California. But clearly swimming and surfing should not be allowed within a couple of hundred yards of piers used for fishing. If that’s not happening now, some sort of system needs to be established to accommodate all users. Possibly that would included designating some piers for fishing and the rest for other uses.

We can all live together peacefully. The problem is that some are willing to do so only by imposing their ideology on the rest of us.

“I managed to provoke fury in a graduate student earlier this semester when I expressed skepticism about animal rights by observing that I’d take the idea more seriously when we entered into labor contracts with our horses and livestock, and asked our pets for informed consent statements before subjecting them to the ministrations of a veterinarian.

“Expressing such distinctions between human beings and other animal species is nearly as politically incorrect as questioning gender theory, gay marriage, climate change orthodoxy, etc.”

It goes without saying that animal abuse in any form should not be tolerated, and, sadly, too much of it continues to occur. But the most radical--- and active--- of the animal rights advocates are campaigning for far more than that. They want to deny use of animals in any way, and they want them to have the same rights as you and me, with their lawyers representing them in courts.